I've realised some big problems which get in the way of trying to explain an anti-abortion stance in a mainstream feminist space.
I first is that most mainstream feminists have completely dehumanised foetuses* to the extent that many of them actually cannot comprehend the idea that anyone could not dehumanise foetuses. Sometimes this isn't immediately apparent because they'll say that their argument doesn't hinge on the 'personhood'** of the foetus because no-one should be forced to use their physical resources to support someone else. However, when you try to discuss the dehumanising of foetuses with reference of other groups of humans who are dehumanised you get called racist/sexist/ablist because the only way a severely disabled person could have the same inherent worth as a foetus would be by the severely disabled person being subhuman. It's a pity, because I think that feminist environments might be really good places to discuss the intersectionality which not only means that black/female/disabled foetuses are more likely to be aborted, but that the legal protection of those foetuses depends upon their disabilities.
This also comes up if you try to explain why "Don't like abortion, don't have one" is a stupid argument. If one excepts a sort of liberal 'live and let live' attitude, then the only excuse for trying to change other people's behaviour is to stop them harming third parties. If you can't comprehend foetuses being third persons then people's objections to abortion are reduced to 'squeamishness' and dismissed. And again, if you try to explain with reference to other situations in which people advocate for dehumanised groups you're accused of being sexist/racist/ablist because the only way you could possibly see those struggles as in any way equivalent would be to minimise the importance of those struggles.
When I say "X is unethical" there are usually caveats. As I see it there are three main caveats. The first is that X is the lesser of two evils in some circumstances. If we're talking about murder of born humans, I think it's justifiable in self defence and in the defence of others. Similarly, there are some circumstances in which I don't think that X is the lesser of two evils, but I also think you can't really blame someone for deciding to do X in the circumstances. People in abusive relationships who kill their abuser in his sleep because they genuinely think it's the only way to escape. Mothers who kill their babies due to post-natal oppression. In these cases the perpetrator seems to be more of a victim and it is our job to work out how we let it happen and how we can stop it happening again. The third caveat is that we are all capable of doing horrific terrible things and that does not make us bad, worthless people. I get the impression that religious people are a bit better at this, probably because recite liturgy with sentiments to the effect of "I know that there is no excuse for what we have done, we are all evil sinners, we all deserve to be smooshed and it is only by your ridiculous mercy that we are not smooshed." Once you see yourself as a horrible sinner you gain a bit more compassion for the people society singles out as horrible sinners.
So when I say that I think abortion is unethical, no, that doesn't include ectopic pregnancies, no, that doesn't mean I blame women who have abortions under threat of poverty and violence, no, it doesn't mean I feel morally superior to women who have abortions in circumstances I think don't justify them. It means that I think we should work to reduce the number of abortions and whilst, just as with anti-rape campaigns, not doing the Bad Thing yourself should be a central part of that, it also requires challenging the circumstances and attitudes which lead to abortions.
*I'm just going to foetus as shorthand for humans between conception and birth. I'm too lazy to write foetus/embryo/zygote and I will not become magically enlightened into the pro-abortion-choice fold if you patronisingly point out to me the proper medical words.
**That term is such a fucking vacuous quasi-scientific excuse for discrimination.
I first is that most mainstream feminists have completely dehumanised foetuses* to the extent that many of them actually cannot comprehend the idea that anyone could not dehumanise foetuses. Sometimes this isn't immediately apparent because they'll say that their argument doesn't hinge on the 'personhood'** of the foetus because no-one should be forced to use their physical resources to support someone else. However, when you try to discuss the dehumanising of foetuses with reference of other groups of humans who are dehumanised you get called racist/sexist/ablist because the only way a severely disabled person could have the same inherent worth as a foetus would be by the severely disabled person being subhuman. It's a pity, because I think that feminist environments might be really good places to discuss the intersectionality which not only means that black/female/disabled foetuses are more likely to be aborted, but that the legal protection of those foetuses depends upon their disabilities.
This also comes up if you try to explain why "Don't like abortion, don't have one" is a stupid argument. If one excepts a sort of liberal 'live and let live' attitude, then the only excuse for trying to change other people's behaviour is to stop them harming third parties. If you can't comprehend foetuses being third persons then people's objections to abortion are reduced to 'squeamishness' and dismissed. And again, if you try to explain with reference to other situations in which people advocate for dehumanised groups you're accused of being sexist/racist/ablist because the only way you could possibly see those struggles as in any way equivalent would be to minimise the importance of those struggles.
When I say "X is unethical" there are usually caveats. As I see it there are three main caveats. The first is that X is the lesser of two evils in some circumstances. If we're talking about murder of born humans, I think it's justifiable in self defence and in the defence of others. Similarly, there are some circumstances in which I don't think that X is the lesser of two evils, but I also think you can't really blame someone for deciding to do X in the circumstances. People in abusive relationships who kill their abuser in his sleep because they genuinely think it's the only way to escape. Mothers who kill their babies due to post-natal oppression. In these cases the perpetrator seems to be more of a victim and it is our job to work out how we let it happen and how we can stop it happening again. The third caveat is that we are all capable of doing horrific terrible things and that does not make us bad, worthless people. I get the impression that religious people are a bit better at this, probably because recite liturgy with sentiments to the effect of "I know that there is no excuse for what we have done, we are all evil sinners, we all deserve to be smooshed and it is only by your ridiculous mercy that we are not smooshed." Once you see yourself as a horrible sinner you gain a bit more compassion for the people society singles out as horrible sinners.
So when I say that I think abortion is unethical, no, that doesn't include ectopic pregnancies, no, that doesn't mean I blame women who have abortions under threat of poverty and violence, no, it doesn't mean I feel morally superior to women who have abortions in circumstances I think don't justify them. It means that I think we should work to reduce the number of abortions and whilst, just as with anti-rape campaigns, not doing the Bad Thing yourself should be a central part of that, it also requires challenging the circumstances and attitudes which lead to abortions.
*I'm just going to foetus as shorthand for humans between conception and birth. I'm too lazy to write foetus/embryo/zygote and I will not become magically enlightened into the pro-abortion-choice fold if you patronisingly point out to me the proper medical words.
**That term is such a fucking vacuous quasi-scientific excuse for discrimination.


Comments
If it's not too rude to ask (and I'm asking mainly to inflate my sense of self importance) who directed you?
I commented because nobody else did, and I thought it was a well-thought out post that deserved comments.
Depends on how it is used. Amongst other things, it is an attempt to put the entities deserving rights and responsibilities on a basis that is not 26 pairs of chromasomes (bringing ethical implications for AI work). It is something where the bar sould be set as low as possible - but I fail to see what is more deserving of protection about a small bundle of cells such as a foetus in its early stages than a small bundle of cells such as a finger. To me it's the brain (in humans) and the capacity for intelligent thought that matters. (Hence Terry Schiavo).
I don't think an early embryo is a person, and I'm reasonably prepared to accept that Schiavo was literally a living corpse by the end. But there are way too many people having delightful little philosophical discussions about "personhood" which turn out to be a minimally polite way of debating whether it's justified spending resources on those kind of people. The whole concept is tainted, not just by the moronic tribalism that passes for the abortion debate, but by an invidious attempt to mainstream socially sanctioned killing of disabled people. So yes, fucking vacuous fucking excuse for not just discrimination, but everything from encouraging suicide to actual murder of people who just aren't "intelligent" enough to realize that they would be "better off" not annoying people by existing.
I really think that assisted suicide should be legal - I think it's fucking inhuman to insist that someone go on living through what they have declared to be unbearable amounts of pain (physical or emotional) - but killing people because you think they *ought* to want to be dead is revolting.
The current stabs-in-the-dark at testing for sentience are really really sucky. I do err on the side of "foetus not sentient, so OK to kill it" with added "foetus is causing harm to mother, causing non-consensual harm is bad so self-defence measures justified"... I do think that abortions are kinda icky though and it would be nice if people never had to have them (and it wierds me out when pro-life organisations are UTTER FAIL on subjects such as "providing contraception" and "providing support for new mothers who didn't really want to be mothers but are going to try their very best").
(I can't find the cat picture with "this post is relevant to my interests, but imagine it is inserted here, to add needed cute things)
Grr...
The nastier and snarkier side of me is saying that she should want to put herself out of our misery after making a comment like that.
Now, can we stop with the insulting generalisations and caricatures please?
But there are way too many people having delightful little philosophical discussions about "personhood" which turn out to be a minimally polite way of debating whether it's justified spending resources on those kind of people.
Agreed.
The whole concept is tainted
And here is where our fundamental disagreement lies. I believe that the concept would not gain as much traction as it does if there wasn't a case there to answer. And so I'm in favour of forceful answers rather than a shutdown, and salvaging what good from it there is (and there is some as I've tried to illustrate).
Yes, it's regularly used as the excuse you describe. On the other hand, I think that many major human rights advances have ultimately workedd by convincing the majority that a certain group are people. And I don't want to concede that playing field.
As ever, however, I read and thoguht "that is a really good post". :)